Good morning my name is --------------------------- and I have decided to choose unit 11,

which is about: La palabra como signo lingüístico. Homonimia. Sinonimia. Antonimia.

False friends. Creatividad léxica. Many things have been said about this topic by different
authors but in order to acquire a clear and logical comprehension, I have divided it into the
following points:

1. INTRODUCTION.

2. THE WORD AS A LINGUISTIC SIGN: SAUSSURE’S APPROACH TO

LANGUAGE.

3. SEMANTIC STRUCTURE.

3.1. SYNONYMY.

3.2. ANTONYMY.

3.3. HOMONYMY AND POLYSEMY.

4. LEXICAL CREATIVITY.

5. FALSE FRIENDS.

6. CONCLUSION.

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY.

1. Introduction.

In the present unit, we will study the sense of relations of synonymy, antonymy,
homonymy and polysemy that describe the semantic structure. We will also analyse the
importance of lexical creativity in a language and the different processes it follows. Finally,
and in order to complete thoroughly this unit focused on lexicalization, we must not forget
the treatment of ‘false friends’ and the problems that can carry to foreign students of a
language. Before dealing with this semantic analysis, I will refer to Saussure’s approach to
language as it has been very important in the description of semantics. So let’s begin with
point number 2 which is about:

2. The word as a linguistic sign; Saussure’s approach to language.

It is important to refer to Saussure as his Course de Linguistique Generale has been a

referent for later approaches to language. His vision of language called ‘structuralism’
holds the view that each language is a set of interrelated systems, where all the elements are
present, i.e., a language constructs meaning by a combination of systems which together
create words with ‘arbitrary’ meaning ascribed to them. He called his hypotheses ‘double
articulation’ of the language, which means that the units on the ‘lower’ level of phonology
combine to form the ‘higher’ units of grammar, i.e. words.

Saussure conceived the whole linguistic system as a set of relationships between the
phonological, grammatical and semantic level. A linguistic sign would, therefore, be the
arbitrary and psychological relation between sound and meaning, i.e., signifier and
signified. Let me give an example to illustrate what Saussure called ‘double articulation’: in
a linguistic sign like tree, the meaning would be the signified, the conceptual side of the
process. Tree is a plant which grows above an established size, which reproduces by means
of seeds. On the contrary, the sound would be the signifier, the phonological side of the
process. Tree is the combination of three phonemes which together form a word. /t/ +/ r/
+ /i:/.

To finish the Saussure’s approach to language, I will explain the distinction he made
between Langue and Parole. Langue is a system of language belonging to the society but
Parole is the individual realisation of language property of the speakers.

On the whole, the study of the linguistic sign represents an essential tool to understand what
can be described as classical semantics.

3. Semantic structure

As we have previously said in the introduction, the vocabulary of a language contains a

number of lexical items interrelated among themselves under different kinds of relation. I
am referring to the relations of: synonymy, antonymy, homonymy and polysemy that will
be explained in this section. So let’s begin with:

.1. Synonymy:

The term synonymy is used to mean ‘sameness of meaning’. English is rich in synonymy
because it has vocabulary from many different sources: Anglo-Saxon, French, Latin,
Greek…, as a consequence, we have pairs like:

buy- purchase or world- universe.

In the description of synonymy we may distinguish between a stricter and a looser

interpretation of synonymy. A strict interpretation implies that synonyms are
interchangeable in all contexts whereas a loose interpretation allows synonyms only to be
set in a particular, contextualised situation. On the other hand, it has also been suggested
that synonymy is a matter of degree, but the establishment of levels of synonymy is
difficult because it may vary personally. I will provide an example to show the difficulty in
elaborating a network of synonymous words at different levels: I can consider that the
adjective rational means firstly, reasoning and secondly, logical whereas another person
might feel strongly it means first logical and secondly reasoning.
To go on with this approach to synonymy I will speak now about total versus complete
synonymy. It is a widely-held view that there are not ‘real’ synonyms in a natural language
and this is mainly because of linguistic economy. It would be unlikely that two words with
exactly the same meaning would both survive in a language. Ullman adopts a radical point
of view claiming that synonyms must fit all contexts, but what he is doing is just denying
the existence of synonyms. On the other hand, Lyons holds a more practical view on the
issue distinguishing between:

- Complete synonymy, which fulfils the cognitive and emotive sense of the word.

- Total synonymy, which refers to words that can fit in all contexts. In this way, we may
have four different types of synonymy:

o Complete and total

o Complete but no total

o Incomplete and total

o Incomplete but no total

To finish with this analysis, I will refer to context-dependent synonymy where the items are
only synonyms in a particular context. This fact implies that the speaker may have similar
ways to convey a particular meaning by the use of contextualised synonyms. I can then say:

- I’m flying to New York or I’m going to New York by plane.

- I’m getting / buying some bread at the shop.

This synonymy can be applied to second language learning and teaching. For example, the
use of reporting verbs in English is a difficulty for many English students. They know the
standard ‘say’ but other context dependent synonyms like ‘suggest’, ‘deny’, ‘order’,
‘explain’, ‘claim’ or ‘tell’ should also be taken into account. Students also be aware of the
contextual significance of synonymy and must be able to use synonyms in appropriate
contexts.

3.2. Antonymy:

It means oppositeness of meaning and can be regarded as a kind of synonymy by

opposition. We can distinguish between two types of antonymy: complementary and
gradual. When dealing with complementary antonymy, the assertion of one element implies
the denial of the other or vice-versa: Single-married or dead- alive are examples of this
kind of antonymy. On the contrary, classical antonymy refers to oppositeness implying a
question of degree. This is due to our tendency to compare the elements in terms of our
perception or the world: Cold- cool-warm- hot or wide-narrow could be examples of
gradual antonymy.
Gradual antonymy deserves a closer look when it is used implicitly. For instance, we know
big-small are gradual antonyms but in a sentence like ‘our house is bigger than yours; the
comparison does not implies that the second house is small, it just means that the first one
is bigger. We can also observe the presence of implicit graded antonymy due to our
knowledge of the world. We accept a pair of opposites like big-small but our knowledge
tells us a small elephant is bigger than a big mouse. I will refer to Sapir to set what I have
exemplified from a more theoretical view. He differentiates between the objective use of
gradual antonyms and the subjective use we make of them when the point of reference is
our own, with no special reference to quantitive parameters.

To conclude with antonymy I will deal with converseness, a term used by Lyons to express
the symmetry and transitivity of some opposites. For instance, if you sell something is
because someone buys it. The word buy is the converse of sell or vice-versa. We also have
to say that the lexical substitution of one term for its antonym or converse normally implies
a syntactic modification that can be observed in these pair of sentences:

- John bought the house from Mary

- Mary sold the house to John.

3.3. Homonymy and polysemy:

Homonymy and polysemy are not always easy to distinguish, so I will provide two
examples to explain its main difference:

- Port, meaning both harbour and kind of wine is an example of homonymy; i.e. two words
with the same shape have different meanings

- Mouth meaning both organ of the body and entrance in a cave, is an example of
polysemy, i.e. the same word has different meanings.

The main criterion to differenciate between homonymy and polysemy is the etymological
view. In this way, words which derive from different etymological lexemes will be
considered as homonymous and words which follow the same root will be regarded as
polysemic items. However, this criterion is not always decisive as there are many words in
English whose historical derivation is uncertain.

The unrelatedness versus the relatedness of meaning is another criterion to distinguish

polysemy and homophony. This distinction would correlate with the native speaker’s
feeling but the obvious problem is that the speaker’s intuitions may vary due to their
dialectal or personal interpretation of language.

Going back to homonymy, I will remark on the one hand, that the elements having the same
lexeme must be lexical and morphologically equivalents, and on the other hand,
homonymous items should be both homographs, sharing the same graphic form and
homophones, sharing the same pronunciation. As we have said before the lexical item port
is a homonymous word because it refers to different words with different meanings and it is
consequently homographic and homophonic.

1. Lexical creativity.

When we speak about lexical creativity, we can distinguish between two different areas: on
the one hand, productivity which refers to the faculty of a language to create new words by
means of set rules of word-formation. On the other hand, individual creativity that relates to
the faculty of an individual to create new words.

I will refer deeply to the second one as the productivity is widely explained in unit 10.
Individual creativity has to broad areas:

- Firstly, the cases where only some formal reorganisation is required and is linked to the
individual option in the creation of a message. Thus, instead of saying: we ought to punish
her, we might say: she ought to be punished or she deserves a punishment. The important
thing is that the speaker is competent to make different, appropriate options. If we apply
this to the English language learning, students should be encouraged to use as many
alternatives as possible.

- Secondly, the other area deals with the new formation of words to satisfy a

terminological need. This process is called ‘nonce formation’ or ‘coinage’ and new
terminology often comes out of this method, above all new words dealing with the
scientific and technical field. To announce these coinages, they are often proceed by
explicit formulae like ‘I shall refer to this as…’. Compounding and/or abbreviation are
perhaps the commonest processes of nonce formation. This way, ‘medioagenic’, which
means likely to promote good relations with the media or ‘workaholic’, which refers to
someone who cannot stop working are example of coinages. Apart from the scientific field,
we have to claim ‘nonce formation’ is becoming also very popular in slang talk where for
example ‘get it together’ means ‘organise yourself’.

2. False friends.

False friends are words which are similar in their form in different languages but have
different meaning. This difference in meaning can be explained because despite having the
same root, these words have followed a different diachronic evolution. This is a typical
problem for English learners, who usually understand in a wrong way an English word
which is similar in their language, therefore, extensive practise should be provided in the
classroom.

I will know provide some examples of false friends:

- Library which is not libreria but biblioteca.

- Exit which is not éxito but salida.

- Pretend which is not pretender but fingir.

- Constipated which is not constipado but extreñido.

3. Conclusion.

Finally, I would like to conclude my reading by saying I have firstly tried to remark the
importance of the theories about the linguistic sign made by Saussure, which are essential
for the understanding of word meaning in each language. Secondly, I have taken into
account the way lexical items that are semantically related among them in terms of
synonymy, antonymy, homonymy and polysemy. Finally, I have revised the individual
creativity through ‘nonce formation’ and the lexical problem of ‘false friends’ in learning
English as a second language.

4. Bibliography.

- Hurford and Heasley, Semantics: a Course book. C.U.P., 1983.

- Lyons, J. Semantics. C.U.P, 1977.

- Quirk, et Al. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. New York. Longman,
1985.